I would hazard a guess that the replacement rate has fallen below the attrition rate precisely because pay has not kept up with inflation, which would fall exactly in line with the parent poster’s argument.
Your guess is partly correct. Jones Act and USCG Subchapter M are bigger parts of the problem.
It is not just pay rate. Where I can match pay rates, I cannot match lifestyle. U.S. citizens and green card holders have more attractive jobs available to them that do not require being away from family for weeks at a time. (e.g., software development)
> It is not just pay rate. Where I can match pay rates, I cannot match lifestyle.
Acceptance of that lifestyle is partially contingent on the pay. I am sure that plenty of people would be willing to spend long stretches away from home at work if they were being paid $1m.
Right, so we agree that fundamentally, this is a pay shortage.
That's exactly the point everyone is trying to make to you. That ultimately most labor shortages, unless caused by extremely rapid change in conditions (such as a law being introduced with only weeks notice that dramatically changes the regulatory landscape with no time to adapt) are usually pay shortages.
Labor shortage has long been used as a weasel phrase to imply that it's the fault of the workers/labor that companies can't fill positions. That's what the pushback is on. If your business can't find enough workers, you or your industry aren't offering enough financial incentive to have people work for you. You need to offer more money. And if you can't because it's not financially viable? Well...seems the free market has spoken and said that your business is not viable anymore. As the kids say these days, 'sucks to suck'.
I fully agree that the industry does not price the labor correctly. This is one reason why I am selling the company and reallocating the capital.
There are many funded projects not executing for lack of captains today. The captains I manage to hire leave other companies wanting. How is that not a shortage?
> There are many funded projects not executing for lack of captains today.
Perhaps those projects are just not viable economically, because they can't pay enough to attract the captains. Or, the owners are too rigid to pay (for example) $500k salary to a captain.
> Where I can match pay rates, I cannot match lifestyle.
Pay is short for “pay to quality of life at work ratio”.
If alternatives with better pay to QoL ratios become available, the then either a business can increase the pay to QoL ratio, or it may no longer be viable.
I did not write "quality of life". I wrote "lifestyle". I find that many young candidates do not want to be on a boat for a week or more away from family. Some do. Most do not. I, personally, enjoyed long voyages when I was young. They added quality to my life.
Yeah, I'm with other commenters.. it's about what you're paying them (and other perks).
Pay people at all levels a minimum of $5000 for each week away at sea, then they might do 4 months of work (which includes free board but is essentially a 24hr job) and 8 months of other things they enjoy while still living a near middle-class life.
Still having a hard time finding people? Give them more comfortable beds. Get an on-board chef. Ensure they have starlink access when they're not on active duty. Give them appropriate bonuses, dental, medical, RRSP matching
I'd be very surprised if you don't find a number of people eager to do this if their compensation is good enough.
Sure, if 80% of your workforce is only on deck 3-4 months out of the year then of course you have to hire more people too, but you'll find those people. You'll be flooded with people who want to do this. Maybe my calculus is off? Maybe you need to pay $6000/week? $10000/week? I guarantee you there is a salary incentive where people won't refuse. People will leave software engineering jobs to go work on a boat 3 months out of a year (I would at around $7000/week). Doctors will quit, etc.
When people say better pay won't solve the "shortage", I wonder how they so deeply misunderstood free market economics.
"most young candidates" don't want to be slaving away at a factory for most of their life either. They want to be able to buy a house. Maybe even 4 months of rent relief will massively change their lives. Maybe they want to buy a house one day or be able to responsibly have a kid.
There's not a labor shortage, there are just industries that don't pay enough
>I find that many young candidates do not want to be on a boat for a week or more away from family.
I think it would be helpful to this discussion if you were to add "for the amount that I am paying them" to the end of that sentence. Then, you would be addressing the point.
In my country (Poland), long-haul truckers are paid roughly double what the local truckers (those who get to come home every night) make. This is enough to compensate people for the inconvenience, and there's generally no shortage of workers. So, maybe in your case, there's also some multiplier that would work?
It is not just pay rate. Where I can match pay rates, I cannot match lifestyle. U.S. citizens and green card holders have more attractive jobs available to them that do not require being away from family for weeks at a time. (e.g., software development)